this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
377 points (87.9% liked)

Technology

59596 readers
2798 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists' permission. And that's without getting into AI's negative drag on the environment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Art is subjective. What I find impactful or meaningful may not be what you find impactful or meaningful. I’ll just say I’ve seen exceptional AI art, but it’s rare.

I can’t remember the specifics, but I do recall there was a work that won some art contest and then had its win revoked because AI generation was used in its creation. I recall really liking that piece.

Edit: I find it remarkable that anyone would downvote what I said in this post. The other I get, you all have your notions and aren’t going to change your minds, that’s fine, I get it. But nothing I said in this post was controversial.